Thursday, November 1, 2012

Conservatives slip in Forum poll

A new poll by Forum Research for The National Post made a splash this week, as it showed that the Liberals under Justin Trudeau would have a 10-point lead and be in the running for a majority. The far more interesting story, though, was the close three-way race that Forum identified in their non-Trudeau numbers. For a more condensed take on this poll, check out my article for The Huffington Post Canada here.

Forum was last in the field on Sept. 26, and since then New Democrats picked up two points to reach 32%, putting them narrowly ahead of the Conservatives. The Tories dropped four points to 31% while the Liberals were up two points to 27%.

The Bloc Québécois had 6% support and the Greens were up one point to 4%.

A few things are worth pointing out with this poll. Forum's report (and, as a result, the Post's) erroneously says that the margin of error is +/- 2%. A sample of 1,735 actually has a margin of error of +/- 2.4%. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a typo on their part.

But the field date for this poll was Oct. 27. That was a Saturday. Pollsters usually avoid polling on Saturdays since people are less likely to be home, making the type of person who picks up the phone on a Saturday less representative of the entire population. Polling on a weekend during an election campaign or as part of a multi-day poll is more common place, but this snap-shot Saturday poll is quite unusual. (The first commenter to claim that the poll disproportionately under-estimates Conservative support because their voters are "outside playing with their children" loses - the last poll from Abacus Data showed little difference in voting intentions between households with and households without children in them.)

Lastly, the numbers reported by Forum on how respondents voted in the 2011 federal election are problematic. They show a vote share of 35% for the Tories (five points below the actual result), 27% for the NDP (-4), 25% for the Liberals (+6), 6% for the Bloc (correct), 5% for the Greens (+1), and 3% for other parties (+2). Memory can be faulty, of course, and is only worth so much considering how many provincial elections have taken place since May 2011. These are likely also the unweighted numbers before correcting for demographics and regional distribution, but we do not know. As is the case with too many pollsters in Canada, there is no detail in the report about what the raw data looked like and how it was weighted.

In terms of the results, only the four-point drop for the Conservatives was statistically significant, and while the gap between the NDP and Tories is insignificant, the gap between the Liberals and Tories is not. In other words, the poll strongly suggests that the Liberals are in fact in third place and that this poll does not represent a sort of three-way tie. But it is very close.

The Conservatives led in Alberta with 60%, followed by the Liberals at 18% and the NDP at 15%. The Tories also had the edge in Ontario at 36% to the NDP's 32% and the Liberals' 28%.

The New Democrats were ahead in Quebec with 31% and were trailed by the Liberals at 29% and the Bloc at 21%. They also had the advantage in British Columbia with 38%, while the Conservatives were down 16 points to 27% and the Liberals came up third with 26%. The Greens were up six points to 8%. The NDP also had the edge in the Prairies with 48% (+15), followed by the Tories at 35% and the Liberals at 15%.

The Liberals were in front in Atlantic Canada with 37%, narrowly edging out the NDP at 36%. The Conservatives were down 12 points to 22%.

With these numbers, the Conservatives would squeak out a bare plurality with 124 seats on the boundaries of the proposed 338-seat map. The New Democrats would win 118 seats, the Liberals 88, the Bloc Québécois seven, and the Greens one.

The NDP lost out on the chance to come out on top in the seat count due to the Tories' advantage (in both votes and geography) in Ontario and the close race in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. But with a combined 206 seats, the Liberals and NDP could likely come to some agreement.

The results of the poll with Trudeau as leader follow the same trend as other surveys. Hypothetical as they may be, they do indicate a weakness in the NDP's numbers as the Liberals steal from their pockets of support very easily.

With Trudeau as leader, the Liberals would take 39% of the vote, a gain of 12 points. Two of those come from the Tories (bumped down to 29%) and eight of them come from the New Democrats (who drop to 24%). Trudeau's presence also hurts the Greens, as their support is cut in half from 4% to 2%.

This Liberal bump occurs throughout Canada: three points in Alberta, 12 points in Ontario, 13 points in Quebec and the Prairies, and 15 points in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. And most of it comes from the NDP, who drop four points in Alberta, eight in Ontario and Quebec, 10 in Atlantic Canada, 11 in British Columbia, and 13 in the Prairies. The Tories also take a hit, but they lose no more than four points in any one region (Quebec).

As a result, they still remain very competitive and would likely win 110 seats with these numbers. The Liberals would win 156, 14 short of a majority, while the New Democrats would win 60, the Bloc 11, and the Greens one. More than four out of every five Liberal seats are won east of Manitoba, while the Conservatives win half of theirs west of Ontario.

Again, these hypothetical numbers are worth very little in terms of telling us about how the Liberals will do under Justin Trudeau. But, as I have said before, they speak more to the lack of attachment between the NDP and a lot of their new supporters. It is worrisome when the NDP loses 25% of their supporters just because Trudeau is mentioned, while the Conservatives only lose 6% of theirs. The idea that Justin Trudeau would easily win the next election based on these hypothetical polls can be dismissed quite easily, but this under-lying problem for the NDP cannot.

58 comments:

What are the regional seat results for the Trudeau-led Liberals? It'd be interesting to see considering their strong results in BC, Quebec, and the Atlantic, and also considering their decent performances in Alberta and the Prairies.

What's also interesting is to see how Trudeau could basically bring back Canadian politics back to the pre-1980s era - the Liberals win thanks to dominanting Quebec, and the NDP is strongest in the Prairies.

Ira, you said the opposite. I can imagine some Alberta Liberal supporters switching to Tory while a lot of Alberta NDP supporters switching to the Liberals. Usually Conservatives are not the second choice of NDP voters here.

Anon is quite right. A lot of the seniors here lived at the time when Alberta still voted Liberal. Naturally when they get older they vote Conservative, since they disagree with Grits' policies. But if you ask them their opinion or favourability, a lot of them like Trudeau.

I have been reading what Trudeau has been selling to Alberta. He and the Liberals are not stupid. But honestly, I believe he is playing Alberta and Alberta needs to be careful about dreaming of a Liberal dynasty there again. Trudeau and the Liberals will say and do anything to distant himself from his father. Ultimately, Justin Trudeau will still treat Alberta the same way his father did. He is cozying up for votes! It's as simple as that. He saw how Mulcair was attacked for his opinion, so he chose to lie to Alberta to save his butt.

Completely irrational. Why would or what evidence do you have that young Trudeau would treat Alberta in the same way as his father, Darcey?

The only person whose opinions have proven to be incorrect is Tom Mulcair and his Dutch disease comments. His comments are not only a slap in the face to Alberta but, the energy, mining timber and natural resource industries in every province. Every study to come out indicates oil prices are only one factor in the rise of the Canadian dollar. The devaluation through quantitative easing of the US Dollar by the Federal reserve being equally significant.

Of course Trudeau is cozying up to Alberta and the West, Mulcair has insulted many and opened a door to improving Liberal fortunes; Trudeau is merely acting strategically.

From my reading on this site you are no stranger to either partisan attack/ bias or ad hominem attacks. Nor is Darcey.

I responded to Darcey's post due to the bias within. Frankly the attack against Trudeau without evidence to back the claim is either misinformation or misguided commentary. Darcey's critique is as I stated above irrational since, in the same paragraph he state Justin Trudeau will do anything to distance himself from his father yet-treat Alberta exactly as his father would.

You may not like my reference to Mulcair but, if Darcey thinks it appropriate to reference the late PET, then I feel Mulcair is also fair game.

OMG, JB, you totally misinterpreted what I was trying to say. One minute you agree with me about Trudeau cozying up to Alberta and the next you slander me for saying that Trudeau is lying to Alberta by trying to look like he is distancing himself from PET. You said it yourself, Justin Trudeau is trying to dive in where Mulcair failed. Yet, if Justin Trudeau stood by his opinion of the environment, he would not be in Alberta trying to sell himself in the way that he is. He is lying to gain votes, he is as you said acting "strategically". You slander me and yet you agreeing with me. You simply restated everything I said in your very own words. With the exception that you disagree with me in saying that he won't treat Alberta as his father did once elected. That's fine, but you need to see that we are pretty much on the same page with that one exception.

You are right, Trudeau is being strategic, it doesn't necessarily make him an honest person. Who is to say that when he is elected, he won't develop another energy program that will insult the people of Alberta? Remember, he is the one who called people in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding to tell them that the NDP is actually separatist. He told that to the people voting in a provincial election. That's where I doubt Trudeau's honesty and that is why I like to warn people of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Peter,

I have the right to political opinion and it is all founded on a poll that shows that in a hypothetical situation Justin Trudeau led Liberal Party would upturn the current house in his favour. It's a great opportunity for people to discuss his policies and who he is as a potential leader. What I have said is not wrong, for it is opinion. It is an opinion that was generated due to the fact that this poll had been conducted.

Well, that was when Trudeau was PM, he created the NEP which was unpopular in Alberta at the time. He was also very unpopular in many parts of Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada at the time. But when he resigned, people started to look back and despite the unpopular things that he did, they believed he did the right thing. Look, his approval rating today is higher than when he left office. It's now more than 30 years since the NEP, it doesn't exist anymore, many Albertans have forgotten what it was. Every leader makes mistakes in office, Albertans know that, and people generally want to know leaders for the good things that they did, and let their mistakes serve as lessons for future leaders. With this in mind, Albertans are not stuck in the past and wants to move on. As an Albertan, I disagree with Trudeau's NEP, but I believe he was a good PM.

Besides, what happened to Ira's dad was probably an isolated case. Even if that happened when Trudeau was not PM, Albertans generally are not disrespectful like that. It's mostly the uneducated, low earners who have such a huge hatred towards Trudeau. There was also a poll released a while back that showed the most likely Tory supporter lived in Alberta and has a low income.

It is you who wrote young Trudeau is both trying to distance himself from his father yet- will treat Alberta in a similar manner (presumably) if he becomes PM.

You spread slander against young Trudeau through accusations of "lying" to Albertans and an unfavourable characterisation of his honesty. Such attacks may or may not be baseless but, if you state them you have an obligation to back them up with verifiable facts, citations or quotes.

Why you accuse me of slander against you is bizarre. I am not slandering you! Yet-you raise slander against me through false accusations of slander! I wrote: what evidence do you have that would demonstrate Justin Trudeau will treat Alberta in a similar way as his father? A question still unanswered.

I understand you dislike Trudeau because he considers the NDP a separatist party. However, such claims are best defeated by debating and defending the NDP's position regarding Quebec.

Arguably it along with their broader policy on the constitution and constitutional reform is a weak spot in NDP philosophy/ programme. If it remains a grey area between now and the next election it surely will linger like a dark cloud above the 2015 NDP campaign. In this sense your comments against Trudeau are unhelpful as it does not dispel his beliefs but, ironically leads one to question your own credibility.

I apologize for the type of comments that are being posted here. There has clearly been a few misunderstandings.

One thing is for sure, I used to be a fan of the Liberal party myself. But I cannot stand for a Liberal party that will continue to throw the NDP under the bus for its own personal gains. I'm tired of fighting to explain NDP policies with all honesty. I agree with you it does not resolve much. Especially if others may not want to share the same views or at least listen.

Young Trudeau is aging, as am I. My opinion of Trudeau has been founded over time by his errors.

First he proclaimed himself as supporting the separation of Quebec due to Harper. It got worse once he decided to attack the NDP during the by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo. Then he takes his apparent love for the environment and mutes it as he visits Alberta. That is where I have founded my opinion of Trudeau. Not based on a single newspaper article or link. Hence, why I cannot provide a single one. It is an opinion based on someone through his/her actions over time.

Lastly, you are a fellow Canadian, I'd imagine, and I have always said "Ultimately, on election day, whoever you choose to vote for, for whatever reason, you have chosen to do what you feel is right and that is all that counts and I respect that!"

Though I may disagree with your opinion or your beliefs I would never force mine upon you. The only thing that I expect is that others are respective of mine. Without going any further, we had a disagreement that clearly got out of hand and I never wanted that to occur.

I apologize and leave it at that. My apology also goes to Eric, the creator of this site.

Thank you very much for your apology. I am sorry if anything I wrote has caused you offence.

Your third from last paragraph is an idea we all need to strive for. Many years ago I worked with politicians (in a non-partisan manner)and the most important lesson I learned was: when the proverbial "you know what" hits the fan it doesn't matter if Liberals, Tories or Dippers are in government; what is important is to have people in charge who will do the right thing or action to resolve, negate or improve the situation.

Eric, If I have caused you or any of your readers distress I wholeheartedly apologise-that was not my intention.

I consider any poll using a fictional or potential leader in it's questioning to be a "push" poll. I felt that way during the NDP leadership race so this isn't a partisan thing. I tend to discount the results of such polling as irrelevant to all but Liberals seeking guidance in selecting their leader, and perhaps even mis leading there. However, with Lib Leadership conteders elbowing their way to the microphones to declare their non candidacy, Justin appears to be a fait accompli, so we'll see.

The call for stricter measures on how polls are conducted and reported is coming from some leading pollsters, who worry that the credibility of their business is getting dragged down by lax or controversial standards in Canada.

“I’m a little disgusted; no, make that a lot disgusted,” says Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos, who wrote an open letter to Canadian journalists last fall, warning of the growth of sketchy practices in political polling.

“We are distorting our democracy, confusing voters, and destroying what should be a source of truth in election campaigns — the unbiased, truly scientific public opinion poll,” says the letter, which was also signed by John Wright, a senior vice-president of Ipsos.

Bricker, who does extensive polling outside Canada, says France, the United States, Britain and even Nigeria have tighter rules for publicizing poll results, whether it’s limits on when polls can be put in the public domain, or tough scrutiny of the raw data by journalists publishing the material.

“Not in this country, though,” says Bricker, who laments how Canadian media outlets appear now to report on any poll that they’re offered, with few questions asked on who pays for the poll, how it was done and how the numbers have been weighted. Why is it so easy to do polls and even call oneself a pollster in Canada?

Ironically, after Ipsos' outcry, they went on to be one of the farthest off (if not *the* farthest) in their final projection for the Ontario election, while one of the primary targets of their criticism, Abacus Data, ended up making the 2nd closest projection.

I've read some criticisms that make a lot of sense arguing that part of the problem is we judge pollsters just by how well they do at predicting the results. Clearly that should be part of it but if a polling company is only publishing weighted results being closest may simply be a result of "tweaking" a poll they felt isn't right.

Maybe more younger working types are home on weekends is a good explanation for the low Conservative support. You're much more likely to get a 75 year old Tory voting Grandma at noon on Wednesday than noon on Saturday.

Anon 22:33, can you please explain why we need yet another Liberal centrist government? I think the Liberal brand needs to chill and those who still support the Liberal brand to step back a while and build the brand up properly. Although I support the NDP, I do like the Liberals very much, but they need a break. A real break.

Offer up new ideas... this old idea of governing in the centre and supposedly pleasing everyone but not actually pleasing anyone cannot work. It get old after a while. Then the Conservatives comes back.

Canada can't keep playing this two way race anymore. We can't keep being the America of the North. The NDP have been shoved to the side for 50 years despite being the basis of Liberal success for many years. People still think the Liberals created health care simply because they passed the law into being during a minority government. It was an NDP plan and policy. Not Liberal. For years the Liberals have won elections by using NDP and Conservative policies.

Its time they make their own to win. Perhaps Liberals fear the NDP governing because they potentially may never return. But I disagree with that. The Liberal brand will come back with time. But rushing back on a so-called Trudeau surge would only be a mistake. That is just my opinion.

I understand your opinion. But I am sorry to say that I disagree with some of them.

First of all, by 2015, the Liberals would have taken a break from government for a decade. That's more years than the Democrats in the US had without a president. That would mean 10 years of rebuilding that includes making policies, etc. During these 10 years, the Liberals are building the brand up properly, they are offering new ideas. Perhaps you should do more research about that?

On the idea of governing in the centre, the Liberals have always offered economic stability with a social conscience. While Liberals disagree with the Conservatives and NDP on many things, we know that there are many areas where the Conservatives and NDP are right about. That's why Liberals want to bring out the best of both worlds and use the good ideas from both sides in governing. On top of that, Liberals don't use hard policies to govern as much as using facts and evidence. Because without considering facts and evidence first, hard policies will not work.

On the two way race, the political scene in Canada can't be compared to that of the US. We have provinces where the NDP and PCs are the top parties, and others where Liberals and the NDP are the top two parties. There are so many variations of Liberal parties through Canada, like the BC Liberals and the Quebec Liberals. So it can't be seen really as a two way race.

Surprised to see the Tories slide to 26-27% in B.C. and Atlantic Canada. I guess Tories are more popular during summer time and election time, when they are not in parliament passing laws.

These poll numbers show there is no need for a merger when the NDP and Liberals can hold support on their own. Though, I believe co-operation in some way or form is an eventual necessity. Even with a popular brand like Trudeau, the NDP can garner 24% support in this poll.

The concern that I have is with newspapers like the National Post using this fictional poll of whether Justin Trudeau were leader of the Liberal Party. Eric, does it not concern you when pollsters issue these hypothetical polls that totally skew and mess with the voters understanding of a political party's support?

I mean I follow politics like a mad man, and Trudeau is hardly capturing the major headlines with policies and such, so where are all these fictional pollsters getting these numbers, that clearly show an earth shattering, complete 360 turnaround in the political field? How can they possibly legitimately say that one minute support for the Liberals place them in third, but seconds later because of a different leader would place well in first place. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How do they ask the question? Would you support the Liberal party right now as it is with an interim leader Bob Rae versus the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, Green? Then ask, would you support the Liberal Party under the leadership of Justin Trudeau?

I mean is the second poll about the party or the leader? I'd like to understand how they are asking these questions. Justin Trudeau's popularity is one thing, and from what I am reading is far from sure at this point. But popularity in a leader and popularity in a political party and its policies are two very different things. I'm bewildered at trying to understand such a crazy turn around. And honestly, it makes pollsters look really bad when something like this comes out!

"If Justin Trudeau were the Liberal leader, which party would you vote for if a federal election were held today?"

If you place the words 'Trudeau' and 'Liberal' at the end of the question, then the first thing people think of are those two words, and some will immediately choose Liberal. Placing those two words at the start of the sentence will allow people some more time to consider.

I agree with you Anon 22:50. Even when I read the question the first thing that populated in my head was in fact Justin Trudeau's Liberals, lol. No word of a lie and I do not support either. I'm actually astonished at how I would have answered.

Also, the second question followed by the first may have automatically forced me to want to say Liberal for another reason. In the first question, you basically have to think up the party for which you support while the second question lays out a party for you.

Not only that, but when you state one party and are then ask to state another one (or the same one a second time), I think the mind automatically thinks up another answer. Almost to say you need to provide an alternative. If I had been asked those questions one after the other and I was in a hurry, like most Saturday nights, I may have thought I had been asked what my second choice would be. As an NDPer, I may have automatically thought up Liberal. Alternatively, people who might be in a hurry when they answer the phone, might just say "Liberal" as it was the last thing mentioned.

Perhaps a better way to even ask the question would be to either list the leaders of all the parties, then ask which you would support. Or simply, because most people think Justin Trudeau will win in the end, to merely ask with a new Liberal leader which political party would you most likely vote for in the next election? Either both questions should not have been asked together, if in fact they were.

Regardless, the inherent flaw in this type of question is giving people an answer. The emphasis is on Justin Trudeau and the Liberals and no other political party.

These are all the things the media should report (the questions the pollsters ask). I'm very intrigued by all of this. Disappointed at how the poll was conducted, but nevertheless intrigued. I can see now why so many criticize polling. In some ways, though I am sure not on purpose, the polling companies are being partisan when asking their questions. This I think is an example of where a polling question may help a leadership hopeful gain momentum in the wrong way.

"If a federal election were held today, which party would you be most likely to vote for - the Conservatives under Steven Harper, the NDP under Thomas Mulcair or the Liberals under Justin Trudeau?" (with the order of parties/leaders rotated randomly each time the question is asked)

I think this is a bit of a moot point, considering the poll is hypothetical and only seconds before answering this question respondents would have already answered the first question.

Respondents who punched in the number for NDP when they were asked the first question won't have forgotten that when they are asked the second. Actively decided to change that first answer is, I think, significant enough.

Eric, thanks for clarifying the wording. I agree with chimurenga -- it's a loaded question, and I now know to dismiss any conclusions about the overall strength of the hypothetical Liberals on that basis.

I am so disappointed over the fact that again, the Liberals will not hold a real leadership race. I watched the NDP race and having all the candidates competing on the same field really separates out the ones that are talented. This Liberal race will be like the last few, going through the motions and 'surprise', Trudeau is the best!

Pre-selecting a candidate for leader of their party has been a dismal failure in the past and will be again, no matter how it is wrapped up at the moment.

What federal election poll in 2008 had any bearing on the federal election of May 2011?Or will this poll in 2012 have any effect on the next election in 2015? But this does give employment to pollsters who have to contact Cdns who have land lines. But last time I recall that the number of Cell phones is equal to the population of the earth. The majority of people I know use only cell phones at home and work, and have not been polled on cell phones. eh.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.